What would happen if the Roman Empire simply was non-existent

this is a comparison of Rome's longevity
Well, we'd better not compare Rome and the Seleucids.
When in OTL Antiochus the Great went against Rome it was like being hit with a truck:D
They were not in the same league. You know what I mean.

You cannot compare their power base.
Antiochus the Great lost two battles and the Seleucid empire declined.
How many battles did Rome loose to Hannibal? And what?

Roman statehood was the most extraordinary unique thing in the history of the humankind. Especially its longevity.
 
Again, I honestly don't see it. At all. What made the Seleukids' breadth of military problems any greater than that of the contemporary Roman Republic? I could quite easily say that Rome, too, had to fight "unusually often" (almost every year of its existence) with "large forces" (required in northern Italy, Africa, Spain, (southern Gaul), Greece). Periods of extended minor low-level fighting certainly occurred in Rome (e.g. the 180s BC, if you ignore Iberia and northern Italy) but they also obtained in the Seleukid state (e.g. most of the period between Magnesia and Antiochos IV's invasion of Egypt, if you ignore Hyrkania and Astauene).

Is the Republic really having to fight large scale intrusions constantly, or for that matter, making them against foreign states, all over the length and breadth of the state?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Rome#3rd_century_BC

Assuming this is accurate until contradicted...
14 years of peace since the last war.
8 years of war. (3rd Samnite War)
10 years of peace.
5 years of war. (Pyrrhic War)
11 years of peace.
23 years of war. (First Punic War)
12 years of peace.
1 year of war (First Illyrian War)
1 year of peace
17 years of war (Second Punic War)
 
Last edited:
Top